Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sumersingh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 February, 2017
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT INDORE
SINGLE BENCH : Hon'ble Shri Justice Ved Prakash Sharma
Criminal Revision No.83/2017
Sumersingh
Vs.
State of M.P.
-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-
Shri Nilesh Dave, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Kshitj Vyas, learned Public Prosecutor for the
respondent-State.
-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-
ORDER
(Passed on 17th day of February, 2017) Petitioner - Sumersingh feels aggrieved with judgment and order dated 13.01.2017 rendered by learned II nd Additional Sessions Judge, Mandsaur in Criminal Appeal No.175/16, whereby judgment and order dated 21.09.2016 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mandsaur (Shri Sushil Kumar Agrawal) convicting the petitioner for offence under Section 325/34 of IPC was maintained, however, the sentence was reduced from one year R.I. and fine of Rs.500/- to 6 months' R.I.
02. The learned counsel for the petitioner, at the very outset, has submitted that the petitioner does not wish to challenge the concurrent findings of fact with regard to his conviction for offence u/S.325/34 of IPC. Otherwise also, it is found that the learned trial Court on due appreciation of testimony of complainant injured Mishrilal (P.W.1) which stands well corroborated with the testimony of Balram (P.W.2) said to be an eyewitness, and the expert testimony of Dr. D.K. Sharma (P.W.5) who conducted examination of Mishrilal (P.W.1) on 24.08.2012 2 and further the testimony of Dr. D.K. Bhatnagar (P.W.4), who conducted X-Ray examination on 24.08.2012 has rightly concluded that on 24.08.2012 around 11 a.m. the petitioner and one Bhanwarsingh in furtherance of their common intention assaulted Mishrilal (P.W.1) by 'Lathi' thereby causing grievous hurt on left hand and simple hurt on the left thigh. A careful perusal of the evidence reveals that there is no perversity in the aforesaid finding recorded by the learned trial Court and maintained by learned appellate Court, therefore, the same does not call for any interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
03. As regards sentence, considering that the incident occurred on account of petty dispute and that no criminal antecedents are attributable to the petitioner, a lenient view can appropriately be taken in the matter. Taking into account the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, a sentence of 3 months RI with a fine of Rs.5000/- under Section 325/34 of IPC, in the opinion of this Court will meet the ends of justice.
04. Accordingly, this petition is partly allowed. The conviction recorded against the petitioner for offence under Section 325/34 of IPC is hereby maintained. The sentence as mentioned herein-above is reduced to three months of RI and a fine of Rs.5000/-. Out of the fine amount, a sum of Rs.4000/- shall be paid under Section 357(1) Cr.P.C. to the complainant injured Mishrilal (P.W.1). The petition is disposed off accordingly.
A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned forthwith for compliance.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge soumya